PLJ 2012 Lahore 259 Present: Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, J.
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved railway police employees who had been served with a charge sheet and show-cause notices accusing them of misconduct and inefficiency, specifically alleged embezzlement of case property for which they had also been arrested and faced criminal proceedings. The employees went to the Lahore High Court asking it to stop the departmental disciplinary proceedings, arguing that since a criminal case on the same facts was already pending in court, the department should wait for the criminal case to conclude before taking any departmental action against them. They also claimed the department was acting with bad intent to remove them from service.
The court rejected this argument and dismissed the petition. It held that a writ petition is not maintainable against a mere charge sheet, since no final adverse order had yet been passed against the employees. It further ruled that departmental and criminal proceedings serve different purposes and can run simultaneously: criminal courts examine whether a crime was committed under the Criminal Procedure Code, while departmental authorities assess whether an employee is guilty of misconduct under service rules. There is no legal bar preventing both processes from proceeding in parallel. The court said the proper course for the employees was to respond to the charge sheet and raise their defenses before the departmental authority itself, not to approach the High Court prematurely.
This judgment reinforces an important principle in Pakistani administrative law: employees cannot bypass internal disciplinary procedures by rushing to court before any final decision is made, and pending criminal cases do not automatically suspend an employer's right to conduct disciplinary proceedings.
یہ مقدمہ ریلوے پولیس کے ان ملازمین سے متعلق تھا جنہیں چارج شیٹ اور شوکاز نوٹس جاری کیے گئے تھے جن میں ان پر بدانتظامی اور نااہلی کا الزام عائد کیا گیا تھا، خاص طور پر مقدمے کی زیرِ تحویل جائیداد میں مبینہ خرد برد کا الزام، جس کی بنا پر انہیں گرفتار بھی کیا گیا تھا اور ان کے خلاف فوجداری کارروائی بھی جاری تھی۔ ان ملازمین نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا اور محکمانہ تادیبی کارروائی روکنے کی استدعا کی، اور یہ دلیل دی کہ چونکہ انہی حقائق پر مبنی فوجداری مقدمہ پہلے ہی عدالت میں زیرِ سماعت ہے، اس لیے محکمے کو ان کے خلاف کوئی بھی محکمانہ کارروائی کرنے سے پہلے فوجداری مقدمے کے فیصلے کا انتظار کرنا چاہیے۔ انہوں نے یہ دعویٰ بھی کیا کہ محکمہ بدنیتی پر مبنی ارادے سے انہیں ملازمت سے برخاست کرنے کی کوشش کر رہا ہے۔
عدالت نے اس دلیل کو مسترد کر دیا اور درخواست خارج کر دی۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ محض چارج شیٹ کے خلاف رٹ پٹیشن قابل
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
AMJAD PERVAIZ--Petitioner versus INSPECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY POLICE, LAHORE, and 3 others--Respondents W.P. No. 27020 of 2011, decided on 8.12.2011. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Petitioner was served with show cause-notice on charges of mis -conduct/inefficiency--Maintainability of writ petition--Validity--It is settled law that writ petition was not maintainable against charge sheet. [P. 261] A PLJ 2002 Lah . 1393, rel. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Embezzlement in case property--Departmental proceedings under rules--No bar to initiate departmental proceeding in presence of criminal proceedings--Only charge sheet was issued--Question of--Departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can run parallel--Contention--In presence of criminal proceedings departmental proceeding cannot be initiated against petitioner has no force in eyes of law as in criminal matter the Court has to look whether any crime has been committed by culprit or not under Cr.P.C . whereas in departmental proceedings the competent authority has to look into show-cause notices had been served to petitioner--Right course for petitioner was to file reply to charge sheet and raise any question of law or fact before competent authority--Petition was dismissed. [P. 261] B & C 2001 PLC (CS) 939, rel. Mr. Abid Iqbal Butt, Advocate for Petitioner. M/s. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema and M. Younis Kiyani , Advocates for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8.12.2011. Order Through this single order I would like to dispose of this writ petition as well as Writ Petition No. 27027/10 as grievance of the petitioners in both these petitions is the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioners which is pending adjudication before the competent Court of jurisdiction; that in the presence of said criminal proceedings the respondents/authorities have served the petitioners with charge sheet/show cause notices and initiated inquiry proceedings against the petitioners; that in the presence of criminal proceedings the respondents are not justified to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioners; that the respondents should wait for the result of criminal proceedings and if the petitioners have been found guilty and convicted by the competent Court of jurisdiction then respondents can initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioners; that the respondents with malafide intention and with clear intention to remove the petitioners from service have issued charge sheet/show cause notices against the petitioners which is not maintainable under the law.
3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have made embezzlement in the case property and have been arrested red handed; that the department has initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioners under the relevant rules; that there is no bar on the department to initiate departmental proceedings in the presence of criminal proceedings; that only charge sheet/show causes notices were issued to the petitioners and if the petitioners have something in their defence they can place the same before the competent authority; that the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can run parallel.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. The petitioner Amjad Pervaiz was served with the charge sheet dated 03.08.2011, whereas, petitioners Shabbir Ahmad and Muhammad Sajjad were served with show cause notices on the charges of mis -conduct/inefficiency. It is settled law that writ petition is not maintainable against charge sheet. Reliance is placed on case reported as Muhammad Javed Vs . Executive District Officer (Education) Sialkot and 2 others (PLJ 2002 Lahore 1393).
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the presence of criminal proceedings departmental proceeding cannot be initiated against the petitioners has no force in the eyes of law as in the criminal matter the Court has to look whether any crime has been committed by the culprit or not under the Criminal Procedure Code whereas in the departmental proceedings the competent authority has to look into whether the employee is guilty of mis -conduct or inefficiency under the relevant rules. No final order against the petitioners is in the field. Only show cause notices/charge sheet have been served to the petitioners. The right course for the petitioners is to file reply to the charge sheet/show cause notices and raise any question of law and/or facts before the competent authority. Reliance is placed on case reported as Muhammad Akhtar Sherani and 35 others Vs. The Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore and 4 others (2001 PLC (C.S) 939).
7. Resultantly, this petition has no force and the same stands dismissed. (R.A.) Petition dismissed